Posts by David Palmer5

Kimberly Robinson2 said:Look, Doa, that’s not even what I meant—it’s more about the fact that his father isn't actually here with us. When he draws a family portrait, he just draws me and himself, which is basically only half the picture. 😢
Even though my boyfriend does end up playing the dad role when we hang out with friends...😁

Laura, you and your son are a family.
I know things are incredibly tough right now, especially being out of work and dealing with the breakup, but please try to provide him with some stability. It feels to me like he might be losing his footing because instead of being his anchor, the situation feels uncertain.
Also, talking about "not having a family" or being a "half-family" likely just plants seeds of fear and insecurity in him. In his eyes, it makes him feel like an outsider—like everyone else has a complete family and he’s the only one who doesn't. That's not good for him.

James Perez54 said:Regarding grades, I am talking about actual, non-fictional student knowledge (measured by As) and you are intentionally twisting my words.

Who is to blame for the inflation of As and honors? Are parents writing the grades in the report cards? Are they threatening teachers at gunpoint?
You tell me, what's really going on here? 😁

I don't know anyone who pays for tutoring to get an A (sic!), let alone to fix an F.

By the way, I have never encountered such a massive collection of hypocrites, emotional wrecks, insecure people, and frauds (exceptions exist, obviously) as I have within the education system.
Why is that?
Back in my day (I'm 43), anyone who couldn't get into their preferred college (lower-performing students) or couldn't find a high-paying job in their field (unrelated) would regularly end up working in a school, taking out their frustrations on children.
I highly doubt things have improved since then.

I can't let this one slide; James Perez54, didn't you just brag on another thread a while back (something along the lines of "how to complain about school" or a teacher) about how your kid got a B in music class, so you and your husband went off on the principal, who then yelled at the teacher, who ended up in tears—only for your son to walk away with an A after all that? 🤷

And as for the rest... nineteen-year-olds are (whether in my era, yours, or now) generally full of ideals and optimism; they want to change the world for the better. I seriously doubt they're as bitter and frustrated as you suggest, and I certainly don't think they're foolish enough to enroll in a difficult major they have zero interest in, just to spend decades working a job they hate simply to vent their frustrations.

Personally, I think teaching is a very noble profession. Sure, there are incompetent or bad teachers, just like in any other field, but I believe most of them do their jobs with integrity.

p.s. No, I'm not a teacher, and I don't work in a school. 😁

silverpuma542 said:🤣
I honestly cannot believe some of the things people say!
Three-year vocational schools are perfectly normal institutions for perfectly normal, capable students. In other words, they aren't "behind."

I mean, would you ever look at your hair stylist and think they’re "cognitively lagging"? What about your florist? Your locksmith? A bus driver? Someone working in jewelry? An auto body tech? A server? A nail tech? A watchmaker? A bricklayer? A tile setter? A shipbuilder? A plumber? A tailor? A cobbler? Or a musician?

Personally, I'd much rather my child master a skilled trade than end up as a political scientist, a sociologist, an economist, or—heaven forbid—just another high school graduate with a degree that leads nowhere.

Of course not.

David Palmer5 said:I can't say for certain since I don't work in the American school system, but my understanding is that vocational high schools mostly take students who finished middle school through an adapted curriculum.
These aren't "sick" kids, nor are they "severely cognitively impaired" (for those cases, there are specialized schools and institutions); rather, these are students whose abilities are borderline or slightly delayed. And yes, they can absolutely graduate from a three-year program, get jobs, and live independently.
You might find better info by checking with a local special education advocacy group or maybe an organization focused on inclusion.
On the flip side, there are also students who struggle academically for entirely different reasons, which means they don't pull enough credits or grades to qualify for a traditional four-year high school track.
Finally, there are students who specifically want to pursue a trade that is only offered through a vocational certificate program rather than a standard diploma path.

As for the rest of what you scribbled down, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, so it doesn't really deserve a response.

Tyler Reyes86 said:Where on earth are you getting that from? What research are you even basing this on? If you're talking about children with severe medical issues or profound cognitive disabilities, we aren't even talking about "independence" anymore, because those individuals require lifelong care.
But if you're referring to, to put it in terms you might appreciate, the "lesser bright," then I should inform you that five hundred years ago, 95% of the population in Europe fell into that category. There were simply too many illiterate people back then. The clergy would hand-pick only the exceptionally gifted boys for further schooling—those with a specific talent for parroting Latin prayers. For everyone else, it was assumed they were incapable of becoming literate. It was thought that if they couldn't learn to read and write, there was no point in wasting effort on them.
It’s the exact same logic you're using today: suggesting that certain kids deserve subpar schooling because their genetic makeup is supposedly too poor to justify investing in high-quality instruction.
As if they wouldn't just collapse under the weight of one extra year of school, as though their heads might actually explode from being taught too much.

I can't say for certain since I don't work in the American school system, but my understanding is that vocational high schools mostly take students who finished middle school through an adapted curriculum.
These aren't "sick" kids, nor are they "severely cognitively impaired" (for those cases, there are specialized schools and institutions); rather, these are students whose abilities are borderline or slightly delayed. And yes, they can absolutely graduate from a three-year program, get jobs, and live independently.
You might find better info by checking with a local special education advocacy group or maybe an organization focused on inclusion.
On the flip side, there are also students who struggle academically for entirely different reasons, which means they don't pull enough credits or grades to qualify for a traditional four-year high school track.
Finally, there are students who specifically want to pursue a trade that is only offered through a vocational certificate program rather than a standard diploma path.

As for the rest of what you scribbled down, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, so it doesn't really deserve a response.

Austin Chavez5 said:I honestly cannot wrap my head around parents who sit there judging everyone else for wanting their kids to be straight-A students, while simultaneously bragging about how their own kids are geniuses. It’s such a hypocritical mess. And don't even get me started on those people claiming three-year vocational high schools are "perfect" because you can just "re-skill or go back to school later." Give me a break! They completely ignore the fact that the education in those programs is absolute garbage—you end up with kids who graduated from a bakery program somehow ending up as auto mechanics. It makes zero sense.

I don't recall anyone saying three-year programs were "perfect"—but let's be real, there are plenty of kids who simply can't keep up with the pace of a standard four-year high school curriculum. At the end of the day, they have every right to get an education, earn a credential, and build a life for themselves.

Tyler Reyes86 said:Oh, so little Ivica from IIIc is actually a college student now. My goodness, look at that! Who would have thought?

College exams are taken during specific exam periods, whereas in K-12, testing happens constantly because you have to continuously monitor the work of the students. In college, that isn't required. No one cares if a student studies regularly or if they were blessed by some fairy in their crib so they can cram the entire syllabus into two days and two nights. In many college courses, there aren't even midterms scheduled, or they are held right before the final exam period. Please, try to understand that the approach to young children has to be qualitatively different. Pedagogy is one discipline, while andragogy is quite another. That is why they are distinct sciences; otherwise, they would be one and the same. Children need to be raised and guided, whereas adults, if they choose, simply need to be taught, because their characters are already formed.

How do you think it has nothing to do with this? In your opinion, is that bolded part okay? Do you realize what kind of developmental problem it creates when children consume garbage in their spare time? That kind of content has a massive impact on their behavior and their values. Generally speaking, school isn't just an educational institution; it's supposed to be a formative one. Or rather, it *should* be.

But I will agree with you on one point. If a school doesn't want to be a formative institution—if the primary focus is solely on a student's innate abilities and their test scores, measured by universal criteria that are identical for everyone—then the school should be designed using a university model. In that case, tracking a student's regular daily work becomes completely pointless; instead, they should just implement exam periods, with all the same options for retakes that college students have.
Because the worst kind of school is one that merely pretends to care about character building, while the teachers couldn't care less about the moral messages they are sending students through their comments, grades, and assessments. If that's the case, it would be more honest not to call them a school at all, but rather a miniature university for children.

Look, when someone takes my post and jumps to this kind of conclusion, I can usually assume one of two things: either you didn't grasp what I was saying at all, or you're really trying hard to be funny.

At the same time, it’s just more proof that for some people, effort is a lost cause.😁

Tyler Reyes86 said:The entire time, I have been talking about nurturing talent, and allowing someone to scrape by with the bare minimum of effort certainly doesn't fall under the umbrella of "nurturing." In fact, it’s quite the opposite; it’s encouraging laziness and the stagnation of talent.
As for methodology, you seem to think we should apply the exact same approach at every single level of schooling, suggesting that any shift in teaching style is bad simply because it might shock the students. Fine, then let's just introduce college-level lectures, seminars, midterms, and finals starting in the first grade, just so kids aren't caught off guard when they finally reach university.
After all, an eight-year-old is made of the same stuff as a seventeen or twenty-five-year-old, and the pedagogical approach can be identical. Just as andragogy can be.
And what happened to hard work? It seems hardly any successful adult in our society has actually achieved anything through sheer grit; most people just figured out how to navigate the system.
Why don't we just grade kids on their ability to "wing it"? I propose we start by making lying and theft mandatory subjects in the curriculum. After all, if that's how the adult world works, shouldn't we prepare the children for it?

Look, let me break it down for you:
- Lectures exist at every level of education. Whether it's elementary school, high school, or university—professors deliver material (obviously tailored to the age of the listeners/students).
- Independent presentations—whether they take the form of posters, oral reports, or PowerPoint decks—are something kids start doing in elementary school. In terms of their core concept (creating an independent project), it's functionally the same as a college seminar paper (again, adjusted for age).
- Midterms are basically just the same as unit tests given after finishing a major section of the curriculum.
- A written college exam is really just the same as the semester or end-of-year tests kids already take back in elementary school.
- An oral exam in college is the equivalent of an oral quiz in school.
I’ll say it again: it all comes down to age and the volume of material.
Which part of that are you not grasping?

Tyler Reyes86 said:Sure, they can. But they don't have to. They could just as easily spend all that free time scrolling through adult sites or staring blankly at the CNN screen.

Elementary school activities are "really similar" to college coursework? Honestly, that is just delusional.

Yeah, some kids use their free time to develop their skills.
Some play video games, watch mindless shows, or surf porn.
Some do both.
What does any of that have to do with what we're actually discussing here?

I already explained the similarities in my work above.
And comments like "that's just insane" don't belong in any discussion, whether it's in real life or on a forum.

jadegardener21 said:

I suppose I should begin by addressing the sheer, unadulterated chaos that seems to permeate our current discourse... although, why one would even bother attempting to find logic in this digital wasteland is a question I find myself asking more frequently with each passing hour... It feels as though we are all just shouting into a void, hoping for some semblance of intellectual stimulation, yet receiving nothing but static... and frankly, it’s exhausting... kaže:
Oh, absolutely... when a teacher actually takes the time to truly get to know their students, they aren't just guessing at things... they see exactly where those kids stand, and I can assure you, those evaluations are anything but vague or arbitrary...

My daughter is six and a half now, and having spent an absolute lifetime glued to her side, I have to tell you... I simply cannot wrap my head around how to gauge those "genetically predisposed" talents you mentioned, whether it be her aptitude for math or her knack for drawing, or whatever one might call that innate baseline level of ability. Certainly, I could attempt to make a rough, educated guess if pressed, but I truly have no idea where the actual threshold lies... I simply cannot bring myself to attempt it...To be perfectly honest, I find myself utterly unable to draw a definitive line regarding what one should even expect from her—whether we are discussing mathematics, drawing, or perhaps gymnastics... and then, quite suddenly, there is this mountain of other subjects to consider. It is all rather overwhelming. One truly cannot say for certain. After all, she is still evolving, just as every child does during these formative years... I spent the entire afternoon simply watching her, lost in thought, trying to make sense of it all, and believe me when I say that I simply DO NOT KNOW the full extent of what this child is capable of achieving...

How on earth is a teacher supposed to truly know a student when she only sees them for four hours a day, five days a week... and even then, if she were lucky enough to have just one child in her care, perhaps she could actually formulate a legitimate assessment, but instead, she is faced with two dozen incredibly diverse kids who all require her undivided attention and care... which makes any attempt at a precise evaluation virtually impossible. She can certainly make an educated guess, I suppose, but she cannot possibly measure someone with the kind of granular accuracy required to establish concrete criteria for future grading, so her judgment inevitably devolves into what is essentially nothing more than a wild guess... and don't even get me started on how this is going to work once we move into specialized subject instruction...

From what I can gather—and this is something I truly believe, much as I suspect her teacher is already well aware—it all boils down to just how thoroughly she has mastered the material... It is quite certain... that certain individuals, those who possess a certain set of preconceived notions, seem to believe they have some sort of inherent authority over how things ought to be conducted... which is, frankly, an absurdity of the highest order... Is it some sort of assignment, or just some random individual... To be perfectly blunt... The subject matter at hand... it is quantifiable, isn't it? But those innate, raw talents one is born with? Well, they aren't exactly easy to put under a microscope. I find myself dwelling quite extensively on the points you raise, truly pondering them, and I must admit that I am starting to wonder if you might actually be onto something... yet, I simply cannot wrap my head around how an educator's assessment of a student's potential wouldn't be inherently subjective, or rather, "clouded"... and how teachers wouldn't find themselves forced to lean heavily upon concrete, measurable data—you know, things like percentages, standardized test scores, comparative charts against other kids in the same grade, and so on... 🤷

So, you actually believe it is acceptable to raise a generation of slackers and total layabouts? To essentially cultivate a culture of mediocrity where people are actively rewarded for doing the absolute bare minimum... especially when they go out of their way to receive a pat on the back just for showing up at all... it truly makes one wonder about the direction this country is heading...

As I have previously articulated to you, I do not view a grade as some sort of moral reward or a punitive measure meant to discipline a student, but rather as a mere assessment of one's proficiency and grasp regarding a specific subject matter... and that is truly all there is to it.

I find myself repeating this point once again, though I suppose it bears repeating... while it is perfectly logical that we approach assessments for young children with a certain degree of caution and gentleness—given their inherent fragility at such a tender age—I cannot help but feel it is fundamentally misguided to instill a mindset where grades function merely as a system of rewards or punishments... It fosters this idea that if one simply exerts enough effort, they should be immediately "qualified" for the highest possible marks. To my mind, this approach is profoundly unrealistic and, frankly, somewhat psychologically unsound...

Why on earth would anyone expect the criteria to be identical across the board, because frankly, why would they be... there simply must be a variety of standards applied depending on the context, and I find it quite baffling when people suggest otherwise. If we don't establish distinct benchmarks for different roles, how are we ever supposed to instill any sense of discipline or cultivate actual work ethic, especially if the very essence of labor isn't treated as the absolute priority it should be...

I am not even talking about... In an ideal system... If we actually possessed a system like that—I mean, if we truly had a framework where every word you wrote was etched in stone and everything could be perfectly orchestrated to ensure everyone walks away satisfied... but we don't. We simply don't. I am speaking about a system that... We. Within this American educational framework, it is simply impossible for my child to "swap" her proficiency levels between English and her native language during standard school hours—where one is treated as a mother tongue and the other as a foreign language—and then have an instructor precisely determine which of her drawings will be subpar versus which will be stellar across all subjects, for her or for any of the other twenty students in class. It just can't happen, and it isn't even a matter of whether the teacher is being lenient; it is quite frankly impossible.

A grade that reflects a student's continuous effort and hard work certainly isn't handed out as a gift. However, a grade resulting from yawning and wasting time, or perhaps fifteen minutes of actual learning, is always gifted, regardless of whether it results in a C or an A.

Again, you are describing some utopian system where everyone progresses at their own individual pace in every single field, and so on... That simply DOES NOT exist. At most, you might find that within homeschooling circles or if you pay for a decent private tutor who actually understands your child and focuses solely on them, but beyond that...

We are bound to some form of a system, to certain collective standards, and to evaluating children based on those specific criteria.
I am not necessarily claiming that this is a perfect thing, but it fundamentally alters the approach to education.
Children who are capable and need to be can realize their full potential through various extracurricular activities. School provides only a certain framework and the foundational knowledge that should be common to everyone, while specialized talents are developed outside of that basic context.

Grades do not pass judgment on a child's intrinsic worth; the fact that YOU perceive them that way and clearly pass that attitude onto your own children—teaching them the unrealistic notion that effort will always be enough regardless of everything else—is a completely different issue entirely.

And as for the idea that children are predetermined for their actual grades, because apparently they are just born that way, I can only tell you that such a view is shameful racism. I find it astonishing that any human being could stand behind such positions.

First of all, I never said they were "predetermined," and if you read my posts carefully (without projecting your own assumptions 😛 into them), you will see that I absolutely allow for variations in the grading of the SAME student in different skills, depending on the level of effort you mention so much—though I do not deny the very real possibility that for subject X, student Y truly doesn't need to exert any effort at all to earn an A, other than minimal exposure to the material itself.
Secondly, yes, I truly believe there is a small percentage of students who ultimately WILL NOT be able to reach the level of knowledge and skill required for an A in a given area (and these could certainly be children who are exceptional in other areas; in fact, that small percentage won't consist of the same group of kids across every subject). For the vast MAJORITY of children, that isn't the case; they will be able to achieve it, albeit with varying amounts of effort—again, I am speaking on a per-subject basis. And to me, that is reasonable and fine. Just as it is reasonable and fine to me that a child might NOT WANT to put in the level of effort required for an A and will instead settle for a lower grade. I see no reason to force every single A or to consider someone "qualified" for an A just because they feel they are trying hard enough in their own opinion.

In my views, I see nothing racist, nor do I consider it a judgment of a child's value when they simply cannot achieve an A in art. You can think what you want, but heaven forbid a child struggles with a particular subject in school. 🙄 Children aren't raised to experience this as a catastrophe or proof of their own "incompetence"; rather, they are gently guided toward what they are good at and what they enjoy, while the rest is just "dealt with," progressing as much as they can and as much as they want, without getting worked up over a C in music or a D in math, and least of all about the fact that there might be a little Mozart or a little Gauss in the classroom who practically don't have to work for those specific areas (which doesn't necessarily mean Gauss won't struggle with music, or Mozart with math, or both with something else entirely). In fact, we teach them to LEARN from these subjects, to perhaps open new windows and new ways of thinking, just as other children do for them, rather than letting them become frustrated (nor do I think such children need to be accelerated if it's just one or two areas where they deviate, namely...specific talent, rather than just general progress from grade to grade in absolutely EVERYTHING). A little Mozart or Gauss deserves after-school enrichment and extracurriculars to actually nurture those gifts, but they should NEVER be coerced within the standard curriculum—because if they simply want to breeze through their mandated coursework without obsessing over their "potential," that is their god-given RIGHT (even if it is a shame for those children to let such talents lie fallow)...

For what it's worth, I was one of those little Gausses back in my school days, and math didn't interest me one bit, and I would have absolutely lost my mind if someone had tried to force me into all those extra sessions and advanced modules just because I supposedly "had potential." Yes, I did, but it was equally my RIGHT to ignore that potential, to not squander my precious free time on it, and to just finish what was required by the standard American curriculum and call it a day, instead of being bullied into frantic competitions and calculus when everyone else was still struggling through Algebra 1 just because I "could"... I could, sure—but I didn't want to, because, *hell*, I wasn't interested then and I'm certainly not interested now. So this topic hits close to home, and it drives me absolutely mad to see people trying to strip away that right just so some third party doesn't feel slighted because I grasped math instantly (and don't worry, toward the end of high school, I was steadily overtaken by those who perhaps had less raw talent but possessed much greater interest and work ethic, and honestly, bravo to them! 👍). It’s the same way I don't believe I should have been forced to get an A in drawing just because I put in the effort (which I did, and despite massive effort, I only made tiny strides), nor do I harbor any trauma over mediocre grades in art class or resentment because other kids were more gifted or understood spatial relationships better than I ever did...

I remember once, when I was just a kid, begging my dad to finish a drawing for me so I could snag a better grade, and he flatly refused. I argued with him, saying, "But Dad, I'll end up with a C or a D." His response? Just turn it in, take the C or the D, that's your grade. There was no anger, no bitterness about the fact that his daughter lacked that specific knack...
See, if THAT kind of attitude were more prevalent, instead of parents everywhere assigning endless homework to their kids, micromanaging every single detail, and paying for expensive tutors for kids who are pulling Cs and working themselves to death just so they can be "experts" at everything, we would have much more psychologically healthy children and far more realistic grading standards. At least, that is my opinion...

That is precisely why I detest the notion that we should all labor ourselves to exhaustion at everything, just so no one accidentally finds something a little easier than the rest of us. 👎

Signature

Tyler Reyes86 said:I think you might be misinformed on this one. There are standard programs for average students, yes, but there are also specially adapted curricula and individualized approaches for students facing learning difficulties. Furthermore, there are dedicated enrichment programs specifically designed for gifted students.

I fail to see why any child should be penalized with a poor grade just because they lack hearing, or perhaps a knack for painting, or a talent for sports or math. Or, conversely, why they should be rewarded simply because they were born with a specific talent? Why not grade people on their physical beauty? That, too, is an innate quality.

And yes, you are correct; evaluating children based on their innate abilities is a natural impulse. However, that is how primitive tribes living in the Stone Age operate. A civilized society provides for different rules. Unfortunately, it seems many people aren't aware they actually live in a civilized society, so they continue to cling to customs from the jungle.

Actually, you can, and in many ways, you must. Perhaps look into the concept of affirmative action and how it functions within developed societies.

What "black average" are we talking about? Where does this "average" exist, other than in the minds of poor statisticians? A classroom isn't composed of an "average"; it is composed of living, breathing students, each with their own unique characteristics. Any teacher who is unable to respect that fundamental fact is simply incapable of working with children.

As for this supposed grade inflation among top students, there really isn't any cause for alarm; by the time graduation rolls around, we’re looking at a mere 7% of the class reaching that level.

Actually, anyone who puts in extraordinary effort has earned that A. Educational psychology doesn't just look at achievements—which are relative anyway, depending on who you're being compared to—it also recognizes hard work and dedication. In fact, one could argue the whole point of schooling is to help kids build work ethic and self-teaching skills, rather than just showing off specific talents like some kind of circus act.

You aren't the only parent here; plenty of others have kids too.

When children are allowed to achieve what you call "top-tier results" (which I assume means getting high grades) without breaking a sweat, they end up becoming lazy and disinterested in working. Why? Because they don't need to put in the effort. Then, when they eventually face real-world situations where hard work is mandatory, they're completely lost; they simply haven't learned how to grind. To not demand more from a particularly gifted student is, frankly, bad pedagogy.

Tyler Reyes86 said:So, what you're saying is that it's entirely plausible for a child to put in massive effort and study day in and day out just to earn a high grade, only for the parent to miss it entirely? And then, through sheer lack of guidance—or perhaps active encouragement—they let the kid just coast and become totally lazy during the break?
Your scenario sounds like something straight out of an absurdist comedy.

On the contrary, grading effort is both possible and the only way that makes sense. Whether someone is working with the child at home, hiring tutors, enrolling them in extracurriculars, or if the child is being neglected and nobody cares—all of that contributes to the overall picture a teacher builds of a student. And of course, communication between parents and the school is absolutely vital.

Tyler Reyes86 said:The entire time, I have been talking about nurturing talent, and allowing someone to scrape by with the bare minimum of effort certainly doesn't fall under the umbrella of "nurturing." In fact, it’s quite the opposite; it’s encouraging laziness and the stagnation of talent.
As for methodology, you seem to think we should apply the exact same approach at every single level of schooling, suggesting that any shift in teaching style is bad simply because it might shock the students. Fine, then let's just introduce college-level lectures, seminars, midterms, and finals starting in the first grade, just so kids aren't caught off guard when they finally reach university.
After all, an eight-year-old is made of the same stuff as a seventeen or twenty-five-year-old, and the pedagogical approach can be identical. Just as andragogy can be.
And what happened to hard work? It seems hardly any successful adult in our society has actually achieved anything through sheer grit; most people just figured out how to navigate the system.
Why don't we just grade kids on their ability to "wing it"? I propose we start by making lying and theft mandatory subjects in the curriculum. After all, if that's how the adult world works, shouldn't we prepare the children for it?

I'm at a loss for words.

Tyler Reyes86 said:The entire time, I have been talking about nurturing talent, and allowing someone to scrape by with the bare minimum of effort certainly doesn't fall under the umbrella of "nurturing." In fact, it’s quite the opposite; it’s encouraging laziness and the stagnation of talent.
As for methodology, you seem to think we should apply the exact same approach at every single level of schooling, suggesting that any shift in teaching style is bad simply because it might shock the students. Fine, then let's just introduce college-level lectures, seminars, midterms, and finals starting in the first grade, just so kids aren't caught off guard when they finally reach university.
After all, an eight-year-old is made of the same stuff as a seventeen or twenty-five-year-old, and the pedagogical approach can be identical. Just as andragogy can be.
And what happened to hard work? It seems hardly any successful adult in our society has actually achieved anything through sheer grit; most people just figured out how to navigate the system.
Why don't we just grade kids on their ability to "wing it"? I propose we start by making lying and theft mandatory subjects in the curriculum. After all, if that's how the adult world works, shouldn't we prepare the children for it?

Some kids just pick things up effortlessly and spend way less time studying than others. They can use that extra time to develop those specific skills or explore something else entirely. If someone can ace a test in one hour of study and still find time to crush it in music lessons, ballet, or a robotics competition—does that really mean we're encouraging laziness? I wouldn't say so.

Secondly, I wasn't even talking about teaching methods; I was talking about what we actually grade.
By the way, the changes already being rolled out in elementary schools (like group projects, making posters, or giving digital presentations) actually mirror how things work in college; it's just tailored to their age.
Thanks for the insight: honestly, I had no idea that an 8-year-old, a 17-year-old, and a 25-year-old weren't exactly the same person. You've really enlightened me!🙏

I'm not even going to touch the part about lying and stealing—someone clearly took a wrong turn there!

Tyler Reyes86 said:You missed the PDF; the section for students and scholars is further down the page. We are discussing elementary school here. And surely, it should be somewhat obvious that we can't apply the exact same rules to college students as we do to little kids in grade school? It seems perfectly reasonable that those younger children aren't exactly at the age where they should be part of a debate regarding exploitation or the development of human potential in high-level science.

Well, the assumption is that elementary school is just the opening act of the whole educational journey, isn't it? That's why I bring it up. You follow me?
Success in elementary school—specifically how we nurture skills and potential during those early years—really dictates which path they take in middle and high school (which is how those poor kids avoid ending up in those terrible vocational programs that seem to bother you so much!).
And then, success in high school determines whether they get into a good university (by the way, in many US systems, high school GPA accounts for about 40% of your college admissions profile).
Does that make sense?
Or do you think we should spend the first eight years rewarding nothing but pure effort while ignoring actual talent, only to tell them in high school—when people end up in the wrong tracks because we ignored their strengths—"Hey, we're changing tactics now; let's start grading based on aptitude and ability"... as if that's some kind of humane gesture.

Tyler Reyes86 said:So, what you're saying is that it's entirely plausible for a child to put in massive effort and study day in and day out just to earn a high grade, only for the parent to miss it entirely? And then, through sheer lack of guidance—or perhaps active encouragement—they let the kid just coast and become totally lazy during the break?
Your scenario sounds like something straight out of an absurdist comedy.

On the contrary, grading effort is both possible and the only way that makes sense. Whether someone is working with the child at home, hiring tutors, enrolling them in extracurriculars, or if the child is being neglected and nobody cares—all of that contributes to the overall picture a teacher builds of a student. And of course, communication between parents and the school is absolutely vital.

Yeah, sure.
If a kid has a natural gift for math but lacks any coordination or drive, there’s no point in him trying to get into MIT or Caltech. Why should he lean on his DNA just to become some big shot in a field he’s naturally wired for? Instead, he might just choose to put in effort, burn himself out completely, and end up studying kinesiology at a local state school! Maybe he'll win an "Employee of the Month" award for his struggle, but that's about it.

Tyler Reyes86 said:

I suppose I should begin by acknowledging that my previous observations regarding the rhinoceros have been somewhat... lacking in depth. It is quite a heavy topic, isn't it? One moment you are contemplating the sheer mass of such a creature, and the next, you find yourself wondering about the structural integrity of its hide. Truly fascinating! It reminds me of those discussions we had last week—you know, the ones where Tyler Reyes86 was insisting on the importance of biological classification? He’s always so precise, isn't he? And then there was silverpuma542, who I believe mentioned something about conservation efforts in the Midwest. Such important work! Anyway, back to the beast itself. There is something almost dignified about a rhino, despite its somewhat cumbersome gait. It moves with a certain... purpose. Or perhaps just momentum? It's hard to say. Regardless, I find myself increasingly preoccupied with the sheer scale of them. It really puts our little human concerns into perspective, don't you think? Just a massive, unstoppable force of nature roaming through the plains. Simply marvelous! kaže:
Insufficient.
I suppose one could argue that two is quite sufficient.
3 - solid.
4. Really quite excellent.
5-excellent!

I truly feel a sense of regret regarding how we grade our children using nothing but cold, hard numbers. When you hand a student an F, you aren't just marking a paper; you are sending a clear message that they haven't mastered the material yet—and frankly, that is exactly what they need to hear. It’s a reality check. However, I find it utterly baffling why a C is treated like some sort of academic catastrophe. To me, a C signifies that the child actually grasped the curriculum. It means they've got the fundamentals down. Anything above that should simply be seen as a sign that more effort is required to reach the next level.

If we’re going to claim that a C is a terrible grade, then our entire American school system deserves the blame. It’s a bit of a rigged game, isn't it? If you graduate elementary school with nothing but average marks, your options basically vanish. You’re looking at being funneled straight into three-year vocational programs or trade schools, which pretty much slams the door on any hopes of pursuing higher education later on. Most parents just want their kids to have every possible advantage, so naturally, they see a mediocre grade as a massive roadblock to future success. It's all about keeping those doors open, right?

Strict grading policies in the early years of Elementary School just don't align with what we know about developmental psychology. Kids at that age are incredibly emotionally fragile; it’s far too easy to instill a deep-seated belief that they simply aren't capable. When they face a constant barrage of low grades, it sends a devastating message: that they are somehow less valuable than their peers. The mechanism for critical thinking isn't even fully developed yet. A child isn't quite able to step back, analyze the situation, and separate their actual effort from their innate abilities. So, when they encounter failure, they tend to internalize it, thinking they are just fundamentally flawed—which makes them feel like there's no point in even trying. That is exactly how you breed a lifelong aversion to school and learning.

It is something that should genuinely give any parent pause: the sheer lack of specialized knowledge among teachers regarding areas they really ought to master if they are working professionally with children. It’s quite concerning, really. Unfortunately, it seems many educators aren't just unfamiliar with developmental psychology, but they seem to lack a fundamental grasp of pedagogy altogether.
The idea that parents are somehow obligated to teach their children "how to learn" feels incredibly unprofessional—frankly, it’s just plain rude.
That is precisely where the teaching staff should be making their most critical impact. It isn't just about delivering content; it’s about equipping students with actual methods for mastering material and retaining information effectively. We need to be teaching them the psychological mechanisms that allow a student to find their own internal drive and stay motivated toward achieving their goals.
On the flip side, I honestly don't think elementary school is even necessary for those lower grades. Let’s be real—the curriculum they cover during that stage is stuff any parent who actually finished middle school already knows by heart, so technically, you could just pass it along to your kid yourself. Of course, not every parent happens to be a trained pedagogue or a child psychologist, so we might lack the specialized tools to teach them actual study strategies. That responsibility should fall squarely on the teachers. Instead, many of them just dump a mountain of information on the kids and basically tell them to go sit at the kitchen table and figure it out themselves. A teacher's job should be to structure the material so that most of it sticks during class time, leaving nothing for home except a quick review. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of educators aren't up to the task, and instead of taking accountability, they just point the finger at the parents and the students for their own shortcomings.

It seems the profound ignorance of our educators has once again made its unwelcome appearance on this thread. I’ve noticed several users making remarks regarding the cognitive abilities—or lack thereof—of certain students. In my view, innate talents, natural aptitudes, or even inherent shortcomings ought to have absolutely no bearing on a student's grade. If we allow that to happen, we aren't actually grading academic performance; we are merely grading genetic predisposition. To judge a person based on their biological data is, by its very definition, nothing short of pure racism.

If you find yourself with a student who is truly gifted—I mean, someone who is operating on a completely different level than their peers—then skipping a grade should be on the table. If that isn't an option, then we have a moral obligation to raise the bar for them. It’s just common sense, really. If we don't, that child is going to lose all motivation to actually engage with the material, and frankly, it creates this weird tension in the classroom. You'll have the other kids feeling frustrated because they see someone succeeding effortlessly due to nothing more than pure genetic luck, without having to put in the grind. It’s a lose-lose situation if we don't adjust our expectations.
We really need to see this kind of adaptability in our schools when working with students who have learning disabilities. It’s essential that we implement individualized education programs (IEPs) to meet them where they are. In my view, grading should be based on the actual effort a student puts in rather than some arbitrary standard. A child's biological makeup—something they have absolutely no control over and certainly can't change—should never play a role in their academic evaluation. It just wouldn't be fair.
Essentially, we need to unlearn this vulgar biological determinism—this whole obsession with racism and those supposed "natural" hierarchies where some people are inherently stronger or weaker than others. We aren't living in the jungle, after all, so those kinds of distinctions simply shouldn't matter anymore.

For the most part, barring a few honorable exceptions, our educators are remarkably uninformed about their own field. If we were being strictly honest and gave them an overall grade for their performance, they would barely scrape by with a D. If they even managed that.

But what's your actual take here?
On one hand, you're arguing that we shouldn't judge kids based on their genetic predispositions, but then you turn around and say we *must* judge them that way—because how else are you supposed to decide who deserves to have "higher expectations" placed on them?
If judging someone based on their DNA is so problematic, why is it okay to use those exact same traits to justify demanding more from some kids than others?!

silverpuma542 said:I think you might be idealizing the past quite a bit. My mom grew up in a rural area, and most parents back then were manual laborers or fishermen doing grueling work. They weren't exactly known for sitting down for deep educational talks with their children. For most, being a good parent meant ensuring the kid had a roof over their head, shoes on their feet, and food on the table. They couldn't really help with schoolwork because most only went through maybe 8th grade, and honestly, they didn't view tutoring as their responsibility. It wasn't that they didn't play games with their kids; it was more that the kids were essentially extra hands helping out with the chores and labor. As for sex education? That usually consisted of "Watch what you're doing, or you won't be welcome back home."
My dad lived in the city, so they might have been slightly more progressive and went on the occasional family trip, but even then, they didn't hover over their children the way parents do today.
And let's not forget how many people moved to Germany for work and left their children behind with grandparents. (Like those letters sent to fathers working in Germany: 1, 2)

I’m just sharing what life was actually like for me and my friends.
See, we lived in Chicago, and my parents were highly educated. We talked about everything under the sun. They made sure to take me to the theater, movies, and concerts, and we actually spent quality time together.
Of course, life in the countryside was tougher, and things were different there.
I'm simply describing my own upbringing and what I saw growing up with my peers.
It feels to me like parents today just don't have the same bandwidth. Between different work schedules and long hours, even when they *are* home, that precious family time often gets swallowed up by everyone staring at a TV or playing video games.

And as for whether the curriculum was as deep as it is now? It definitely was.
We had to master our history and fundamentals.
If we had to memorize every single song or poem, we did it.
We even had classes on Saturdays sometimes.
And yeah, getting on the Honor Roll was way harder back then than it is today.
But hey, what can I do about it? That's just how it was.

urbanbison70 said:It's not just harder—it's damn near impossible today🤣

I have to disagree.
I consider myself part of the "old school" generation, but I still have some first-grade handwriting samples at home where you can clearly see we were taught cursive. We actually used fountain pens.
And don't even get me started on having to learn two different alphabets; we had to master both scripts through elementary school and high school...
Back then, we were required to memorize all the poems we studied in literature class, which isn't really how things are done anymore.
Oh, and yeah, we even had classes on Saturdays.
The actual curriculum hasn't changed much in a hundred years—even the required reading lists are more or less the same.

It was the lifestyle that was different.
Our parents usually worked until 3:00 PM, so they could spend the whole afternoon with us. Families actually talked to one another, read together, played board games... we spent our time running around parks and backyards, so our motor skills were much more developed than kids have today. Nowadays, most kids are glued to a TV or a computer playing video games. When we were little, we’d walk to the corner store by ourselves, which helped us pick up math much faster because it was applied to something real.
There was so much more face-to-face communication and reading. Very few people owned a TV, so when there was a show on, the whole family watched it together, discussing and commenting on it. Today, almost every kid has their own TV in their bedroom, which has killed off that shared interaction and conversation—things that are vital for language development.
Kids these days spend about five or six hours a day watching mindless soap operas or texting each other on social media (just look at the way those messages are written!).
Also, it was perfectly normal if only three or four students in a class were honor roll students. No one made a huge scene or called the Board of Education if a kid brought home a grade lower than a B.

P.S. Just to be clear, I don't work in education; I'm just trying to offer an objective perspective.

Quote:

David Palmer5 says: I figured you might check at least one of those boxes. 😁

First off, I'm a woman.
Second, I've got a little bit of everything going for me (well, I did when I was younger 😁), and it’s never been a downside—it’s just an advantage. 😉
Besides, like I said before, it's pretty easy to mask good looks.
And intelligence isn't always easy to hide either, ☕

Keith Thomas21 said:In my view, beauty can actually be more of a curse than a blessing for people like this. Because everyone is so preoccupied with admiring them, no one ever bothers to look past the surface to see their other qualities and strengths—which, I am certain, exist.
I once knew an exceptionally beautiful woman who suffered immensely because of it. She’s in her thirties now, and she still hasn't married or even maintained a long-term relationship. At her job, she deals with constant harassment from men and deep resentment from women. All she ever wanted was to just be ordinary.

Then again, looking at it from another angle, some women know exactly how to weaponize their beauty to get what they want. But to do that, you really have to be born without a heart and possess a staggering amount of ego.

Any girl who is struggling because she's "too pretty" could easily just go for a messy hairstyle, dye her hair an ugly color, throw on some baggy jeans and an oversized shirt, and skip the makeup entirely—and I guarantee nobody would notice her beauty. (Truthfully, I've never actually seen anyone do that).
Personally, I don't quite get why someone would suffer because they happen to be attractive. Or smart. Or funny. Or charming. Or talented.
I just don't buy that kind of "suffering."

ambermaker12 said:Let me break this down briefly. I live with my brother and my mother. Our relationship is basically a Cinderella story—and not the fairy tale kind. It’s a disaster. To put it bluntly, she treats me like garbage, while my brother is the golden child. He doesn't openly hate me, but when I actually need a hand with something, he acts like we're strangers. There’s no reason for it; I’m a decent kid—not rude, not lazy, none of that. My grades have always been solid—straight As in middle school, mostly As and Bs now in high school—so there aren't any major issues there. But every single day when I get home from school, I’m expected to handle chores that would make most people do a double-take. For instance, I get home, and before my mother gets back around 4:00 PM, I have to wash the dishes, start the laundry, hang it up, fold the dry clothes, and lately, even organize her things. If I put something back in the wrong spot because I don't know her specific system, she blows up at me, calling me incompetent or stupid. It's constant. I’m expected to take out the trash, vacuum and clean both my room and hers (!) twice a week, mop the floors, you name it. Meanwhile, my brother doesn't have to lift a finger; he isn't in school and doesn't work, so he just sits around all day on his PC or watching TV. And when my mother finally walks through the door, she’s never satisfied. She always finds something to nitpick—why this wasn't done a certain way or how I could have done better. Honestly, I can't even remember the last time she gave me a shred of praise. So, after she finishes criticizing my housework, I try to get some studying done, then ask if I can go out for a bit in the evening—maybe grab coffee or see friends—but she won't let me go out for more than once a week. She claims I need to study and that I'll ruin my GPA if I don't 🙄
On weekends, she lets me go out Saturday night, though I rarely have the cash to do anything since my weekly allowance is only $17, which barely covers lunch at school or supplies like notebooks and photocopies. On top of that, she expects me to have enough left over for coffee on Saturdays. That is physically impossible. Meanwhile, she gives my brother whatever he wants, around $33, without a second thought because "he's older and has more needs." He can be out 24/7. I'm grounded by 10:00 PM on Saturdays, no exceptions. He stays out whenever he feels like it; once he even stumbled in at 5:00 AM drunk, and she didn't even notice because she was asleep. She just asked him when he got in, and whatever he said, it didn't matter. If I had done that, I would have been grounded for a month. Now, my friends are inviting me to a cabin for New Year's Day, and when I asked if I could go, she naturally said no. When I asked why she's constantly so harsh with me, she just told me to look at how I act and try to be more like my brother 😕 (meaning, she thinks I should stop complaining about how she treats me)
The absolute worst part happened this past summer. I took on a job to save up for a trip to Florida, and I actually managed to earn some money. She even let me go on the trip, which was great. I kept my cash in my wallet, but then $333 went missing. When I told her, she acted like she felt bad for me, only for me to find that exact money in my brother's possession. Her response? She just told him to give it back to me. Thinking about her makes me sick. I don't know what to do, but I can't live like this anymore. Please, I need advice before I lose my mind.

Interesting...
But what about all that talk regarding Christmas?
"Mom is already in the kitchen, Dad's napping, my brother is watching cartoons......."

I think I'll find some more posts to catch up on whenever I have a free moment.☕

Arthur Ramirez7 said:It seems like so many people deal with foot issues, but some of us are dealing with the really nasty stuff—constant pain in our feet and calves, tingling sensations, headaches, just feeling totally wiped out, not to mention the aesthetic side of things like my feet rolling inward...

I’ve heard people say that if you don't fix these problems while you're young, you're basically stuck wearing orthotics for the rest of your life, but then I wonder, what are you supposed to do during those three months of summer when everyone is just hanging out in flip-flops?

From my own experience, I've found that those inserts don't really do much, whereas actual exercise can make a huge difference; for instance, I actually took an adult ballet class for a little while and my foot shape actually "lifted," the pain completely vanished, and I even ended up dropping half a shoe size!??!

Unfortunately, my local dance studio ended up closing down, I stopped exercising regularly, and everything just slid right back to how it was after a few months... does anyone know of any specific exercises that might help, or have you guys tried anything yourselves?

Well, if you already know from firsthand experience what worked best (and obviously, your shoe size dropped because your arches improved!), then the simplest solution is to get back to it. Try to remember all those moves you did at the studio and force yourself to do them every single day. It's clearly way more effective than that toe-heel-edge walking, picking up scraps of fabric with your toes, or using a massage roller!

Hannah Peterson2 said:Just mix the pill into a spoonful of yogurt and swallow it down. One of my friends swears that’s the only way it works, or she just crushes it into a fine powder and gets it over with!

Honestly, mixing it into some yogurt or maybe a pudding—basically anything smooth—is a much better move than crushing it. Some medications are specifically designed not to be broken down early; they need to pass through the stomach intact so they can dissolve properly once they hit the intestines.